Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Observationally Constrained Cosmological model in $f(Q,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ Gravity with $H(z)$ parameterization

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Non-metricity gravity with imposed H(z) fits cosmic acceleration data

desk verdict Competent parameterized cosmology in f(Q, L_m) gravity, but the dynamical results (EOS, energy conditions) cannot be reproduced because the theory parameters α and β are never assigned values or fitted. The kinematic results are fine. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06436 v1 pith:E5GGFZYN submitted 2026-07-07 gr-qc

Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj , Maxim Khlopov , Maxim Krasnov , Saibal Ray This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.Es04.50.Kd95.36.+x
keywords energymodelconditionconstrainedcosmiccosmologicalmathcalparameter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a modified theory of gravity built on non-metricity (the Q scalar) rather than curvature can reproduce the observed history of cosmic expansion without invoking a cosmological constant. The authors adopt a specific three-parameter functional form for the Hubble parameter H(z) — one designed to transition smoothly from early deceleration to late-time acceleration — and plug it into the Friedmann equations of f(Q, L_m) gravity, a framework where the gravitational action couples the non-metricity scalar Q directly to the matter Lagrangian density L_m. They then fit the free parameters against five modern observational datasets (cosmic chronometers, Pantheon+SH0ES supernovae, Union 3.0 supernovae, DESI baryon acoustic oscillation measurements, and CMB distance priors) using standard chi-squared minimization with MCMC sampling. The central claim is that this parameterization, when embedded in the f(Q, L_m) framework with a linear-plus-constant functional form f = -alpha*Q + 2*L_m + beta, produces a cosmological model consistent with current observations across multiple diagnostics: a transition from deceleration to acceleration at redshift z_t approximately 0.643, a present-day equation-of-state parameter in the quintessence regime (between -1 and 0) that asymptotically approaches the LambdaCDM limit, a cosmic age of about 13.724 billion years, and energy conditions satisfying the Null and Dominant conditions while violating the Strong Energy Condition as required for accelerated expansion.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is the interplay between three components: (1) the f(Q, L_m) gravitational action with the specific linear form f = -alpha*Q + 2*L_m + beta, which modifies the standard Friedmann equations by coupling the non-metricity scalar Q to the matter Lagrangian L_m and introduces non-conservation of the energy-momentum tensor; (2) the imposed Hubble parameterization H(z) = H_0 * [(delta + gamma*(z+1)^eta)/(gamma + delta)]^(3/(2*eta)), which encodes the transition from deceleration to acceleration through its functional shape; and (3) the effective energy density and pressure reconstructed from the modified Friedmann equations, which yield the equation-of-state, dec

What would settle it

If future observations (e.g., from DESI DR2 or next-generation CMB experiments) constrain the transition redshift, equation-of-state evolution, or jerk parameter away from the values predicted by this parameterization with its best-fit parameters, the model would be ruled out. Additionally, if the non-conservation of the energy-momentum tensor inherent in f(Q, L_m) gravity produces observable effects in structure formation or gravitational lensing that are not seen, the framework itself would be challenged.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that a cosmological model constructed within f(Q, L_m) gravity — where gravity is described entirely by non-metricity rather than curvature or torsion, and where the matter Lagrangian is non-minimally coupled to the gravitational sector — can be made observationally viable by choosing a particular Hubble parameter parameterization H(z) = H_0 * [(delta + gamma*(z+1)^eta) / (gamma + delta)]^(3/(2*eta)). With best-fit parameters constrained by combined observational data, this setup reproduces the standard cosmological narrative: early matter-dominated deceleration, a transition to dark-energy-driven acceleration at z_t ~ 0.643, a quintessence-like equation ofstate

Load-bearing premise

The Hubble parameter parameterization is chosen by hand to produce a transition from deceleration to acceleration, rather than being derived from the f(Q, L_m) action or any underlying physical principle. All subsequent predictions — the transition redshift, cosmic age, equation-of-state trajectory, and energy condition behavior — follow algebraically from this imposed functional form with fitted parameters, so the paper tests whether this parameterization can fit data, not

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the model is correct, non-metricity-based gravity theories with matter-geometry coupling provide a viable alternative to the cosmological constant, potentially addressing the fine-tuning and coincidence problems of LambdaCDM.
  • The transition redshift z_t ~ 0.643 and cosmic age ~13.724 Gyr are specific, falsifiable numbers that can be tested against future precision measurements from next-generation surveys.
  • The asymptotic approach of the equation-of-state parameter to the LambdaCDM limit (omega -> -1) means the model becomes degenerate with standard cosmology at late times, making it difficult to distinguish from LambdaCDM using low-redshift probes alone.
  • The violation of the Strong Energy Condition, combined with satisfaction of the Null and Dominant Energy Conditions, places the model in the same qualitative class as standard dark energy scenarios, meaning it does not require exotic phantom matter (omega < -1).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a cosmological model in f(Q, L_m) gravity using the linear form f(Q, L_m) = -alpha*Q + 2*L_m + beta (Eq. 24) on a flat FLRW background. The authors impose a specific H(z) parameterization (Eq. 27) with four free parameters (delta, gamma, eta, H_0), constrain these using CC, Pantheon+SH0ES, Union 3.0, DESI-BAO, and CMB distance priors via MCMC, and then analyze kinematic quantities (deceleration parameter, jerk, statefinders, Om diagnostic) and dynamical quantities (energy density, EOS parameter, energy conditions). The paper reports a transition redshift z_t ~ 0.643, cosmic age ~ 13.724 Gyr, quintessence-like EOS, and satisfaction of NEC/DEC with violation of SEC.

Significance. The paper performs a thorough observational analysis using multiple up-to-date datasets (including DESI DR2 and Union 3.0) and a standard MCMC methodology. The kinematic diagnostics (q, j, r, s, Om) are derived cleanly and are self-consistent. However, the significance of the f(Q, L_m) framework itself is unclear because the theory parameters alpha and beta that define the modification to GR are never constrained or even assigned numerical values, making the dynamical results (EOS, energy conditions) non-reproducible. The H(z) parameterization is imposed rather than derived from the field equations, which is a common approach but limits what the model actually predicts versus what is built in by construction.

major comments (1)
  1. Section 2.2, Eqs. (24)-(26) and Section 4, Eqs. (33)-(35): The theory parameters alpha and beta appear in the Friedmann equations (Eqs. 25-26), the expressions for energy density (Eq. 33), pressure (Eq. 34), and the EOS parameter (Eq. 35). However, Table 1 only reports constraints on delta, gamma, eta, and H_0. The parameters alpha and beta are never assigned numerical values or included in the MCMC fit. Consequently, every dynamical result that depends on rho, p, or omega — including the EOS trajectory (Fig. 2b, Table 2 values of omega_0), the energy density plot (Fig. 2a), and the entire energy conditions analysis (Figs. 7-8, Section 5) — cannot be reproduced from the information provided. The authors must either (i) specify the values of alpha and beta used to generate these figures and justify them, or (ii) include alpha and beta in the MCMC analysis. Without this, the claims about '
minor comments (5)
  1. Eq. (25): The Friedmann equation is written as 3H^2 = rho/(2*alpha) - beta/(2*alpha), which would give rho = 6*alpha*H^2 + beta. However, Eq. (33) gives rho = beta/2 + 3*alpha*H_0^2*[...]^(3/eta) = beta/2 + 3*alpha*H^2, which is consistent with 3H^2 = rho/alpha - beta/(2*alpha). Please check for a factor-of-2 typo in Eq. (25).
  2. Table 2: The omega_0 values for datasets I and II are reported as positive (0.630 and 0.790), which would place the present universe in the matter-dominated or stiff-matter regime, contradicting the claim of quintessence behavior (-1 < omega < 0). Please clarify whether these are typographical errors.
  3. Section 4.4: The statefinder trajectory is described as originating at the SCDM point (r=1, s=1), but the standard SCDM fixed point in the r-s plane is (r=1, s=0). Please verify.
  4. The paper would benefit from a brief discussion acknowledging that the H(z) parameterization is an ansatz imposed on the model rather than a prediction derived from the f(Q, L_m) action, and clarifying what the f(Q, L_m) framework adds beyond the kinematic parameterization.
  5. Several references appear to have formatting issues (e.g., Ref. 62 has a missing title; Ref. 109 has a stray 'd' before 'S.D. Odintsov').

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee raises a substantive and valid concern: the theory parameters alpha and beta in the f(Q, L_m) model are never assigned numerical values or included in the MCMC fit, making the dynamical results (EOS, energy density, energy conditions) non-reproducible. We acknowledge this is a genuine gap in the manuscript. Upon examination, we find that alpha and beta enter the expressions for rho, p, and omega as overall scaling factors, and the qualitative behavior (sign of energy density, quintessence regime, SEC violation) is independent of their specific values as long as alpha > 0 and beta > 0. However, the referee is correct that without specifying these values, the figures and numerical results cannot be reproduced. We will revise the manuscript to fix alpha = 1 and beta = 0 (recovering the standard GR-like normalization) or to determine beta from the Friedmann equation at z = 0 using the observed matter density, and we will explicitly state the values used. We disagree only with the implication that the entire framework is vacuous: the kinematic results (q, j, r, s, Om) are fully determined by the H(z) parameterization and are independent of alpha and beta, and the qualitative conclusions about energy conditions hold for any positive alpha and beta. Nevertheless, we agree that numerical reproducibility requires specifying these parameters, and we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section 2.2, Eqs. (24)-(26) and Section 4, Eqs. (33)-(35): The theory parameters alpha and beta appear in the Friedmann equations (Eqs. 25-26), the expressions for energy density (Eq. 33), pressure (Eq. 34), and the EOS parameter (Eq. 35). However, Table 1 only reports constraints on delta, gamma, eta, and H_0. The parameters alpha and beta are never assigned numerical values or included in the MCMC fit. Consequently, every dynamical result that depends on rho, p, or omega — including the EOS trajectory (Fig. 2b, Table 2 values of omega_0), the energy density plot (Fig. 2a), and the entire energy conditions analysis (Figs. 7-8, Section 5) — cannot be reproduced from the information provided. The authors must either (i) specify the values of alpha and beta used to generate these figures and justify them, or (ii) include alpha and beta in the MCMC analysis.

    Authors: The referee is correct that alpha and beta are not assigned numerical values in the current manuscript, and we acknowledge that this prevents reproducibility of the dynamical figures and numerical results. This is a genuine oversight that we will rectify in the revised manuscript. We will adopt option (i): we will specify the values of alpha and beta used and justify them. Specifically, we note that the manuscript already states (Section 2.2) that for alpha = 1 and beta = 0, the standard Friedmann equations of GR are recovered. We will set alpha = 1 as a normalization convention (which simply fixes the effective gravitational coupling) and determine beta from the Friedmann equation (Eq. 25) evaluated at z = 0, using the observed present-day matter density. This yields beta = rho_m0 - 6H_0^2 (in the units of the manuscript), which is fully determined once H_0 is constrained by the MCMC and rho_m0 is fixed from observations. With these values explicitly stated, all dynamical quantities become reproducible. We agree that including alpha and beta as free parameters in the MCMC (option ii) would be a more complete treatment, but it would also introduce degeneracies with the H(z) parameterization parameters that may not be well-constrained by the current datasets. We believe option (i) is the more transparent and practical approach, and we will implement it with full justification in the revision. We also note that the kinematic diagnostics (q, j, r, s, Om) are entirely independent of alpha and beta, as the referee can verify from Eqs. (39)-(44), so those results stand without modification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; derivation is self-contained parametric cosmology with minor self-citations that are not load-bearing

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) choose a linear f(Q, L_m) = -αQ + 2L_m + β action (Eq. 24), yielding Friedmann equations with constants α, β (Eqs. 25–26); (2) impose an ad hoc H(z) parameterization (Eq. 27) with parameters δ, γ, η, H₀; (3) fit those parameters to observational data via MCMC (Table 1); (4) compute derived quantities algebraically. The kinematic quantities (q in Eq. 39, jerk in Eq. 43, statefinders in Eqs. 40–41, Om in Eq. 44) are algebraic consequences of the fitted H(z), and the transition redshift z_t is found by setting q=0. This is standard parametric cosmology: the fitted quantities are H(z) values at various redshifts, while the derived quantities (z_t, age, q₀, j₀) are different quantities computed from the fitted parameters. No prediction is identical to a fitted input by construction. The H(z) parameterization is ad hoc (not derived from the f(Q, L_m) action), but the paper does not claim otherwise — it explicitly states 'we consider a specific parameterization.' The unspecified α and β parameters (never fitted or assigned values) mean the dynamical quantities (ρ, p, ω, energy conditions) are not fully reproducible, but this is a correctness/completeness gap, not circularity. Self-citations exist (refs [51], [86], [87], [101], [103], [111] by Bhardwaj and/or Ray) but are used for result comparison, not as load-bearing theoretical premises. The key theoretical references ([65] for the action form, [107] for energy conditions) are by external author groups. Score 1 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new particles, forces, fields, or dimensions beyond the f(Q, L_m) framework itself (which is cited from prior work). The free parameters δ, γ, η are mathematical parameters of the H(z) ansatz, not physical entities. The constants α and β appear in the gravitational action but their status (fitted vs fixed) is ambiguous in the paper.

free parameters (6)
  • H_0 = 67.134 ± 1.124 km/s/Mpc (combined IX)
    Present-day Hubble parameter, fitted to observational data via MCMC.
  • δ = 2.200 ± 0.881 (combined IX)
    Parameter in the H(z) parameterization (Eq. 27), fitted to data.
  • γ = 1.346 ± 0.534 (combined IX)
    Parameter in the H(z) parameterization (Eq. 27), fitted to data.
  • η = 2.383 ± 0.146 (combined IX)
    Exponent parameter in the H(z) parameterization (Eq. 27), fitted to data.
  • α = Not explicitly fitted; set to 1 to recover GR limit or treated as fixed
    Appears in f = -αQ + 2L_m + β (Eq. 24). The paper states α=1, β=0 recovers GR but does not clearly report fitted values for α and β in Table 1, suggesting they may be fixed or absorbed.
  • β = Not explicitly reported in Table 1
    Constant term in f = -αQ + 2L_m + β (Eq. 24). Its fitted value is not listed among the constrained parameters in Table 1, creating ambiguity about whether it is fixed or fitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Flat FLRW metric describes the universe (Eq. 15)
    Standard cosmological assumption; spatial flatness is supported by CMB observations but is still an assumption simplifying the field equations.
  • domain assumption Matter Lagrangian L_m = ρ (matter density)
    Stated in §2.2 when specifying f = -αQ + 2L_m + β. The choice L_m = ρ vs L_m = p or L_m = -ρ affects the field equations; this choice is made without detailed justification.
  • ad hoc to paper The H(z) parameterization H(z) = H_0[(δ+γ(z+1)^η)/(γ+δ)]^(3/2η) adequately describes cosmic expansion history
    This functional form (Eq. 27) is imposed to parameterize H(z). It is not derived from the f(Q, L_m) action or any symmetry principle. Its choice is motivated by the desire to produce a deceleration-to-acceleration transition.
  • ad hoc to paper The linear form f(Q, L_m) = -αQ + 2L_m + β captures the relevant physics
    Eq. 24 selects a specific linear combination of Q and L_m. No derivation or physical argument is given for why this linear form is preferred over other possible f(Q, L_m) functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observationally Constrained Cosmological model in $f(Q,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ Gravity with $H(z)$ parameterization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5GGFZYN

@misc{pith2026260706436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observationally Constrained Cosmological model in $f(Q,\mathcalL_m)$ Gravity with $H(z)$ parameterization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5GGFZYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06436}
}
abstract

In the present work, we explore an observationally constrained cosmological model in the framework of $f(Q,\mathcal{L}_{m})$ gravity, where $Q$ denotes the non-metricity scalar and $\mathcal{L}_{m}$ represents the matter Lagrangian density. To derive the modified Friedmann field equations, we consider a flat FLRW space-time. We have considered a specific parameterization of the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ to explore the cosmic evolution, which successfully describes the shift of the cosmos from its initial decelerated expansion period to the current accelerated scenario. The free model parameters are constrained using recent observational datasets including Cosmic Chronometers (CC), Pantheon+SH0ES, Union 3.0, DESI-BAO, and CMB distance priors using MCMC approach through the $\chi^2$-minimization process. The derived results indicate that the present model remains consistent with recent cosmological observations. We note that the deceleration parameter exhibits a signature flipping behavior at transition redshift $z_t \approx 0.643$, confirming the transition from matter-dominated deceleration to dark-energy-driven acceleration. The equation of state (EOS) parameter remains in the quintessence region and exhibits an asymptotical approach to the $\Lambda$CDM limit at late times. Moreover, the estimated cosmic age can be found as $13.724^{+0.087}_{-0.048}$ Gyr, which agrees well with recent observational estimations. The statefinder and Om diagnostics support the quintessence nature of the model. At the same time, the examination of energy conditions reveals that two specific energy conditions, viz. Null Energy Condition (NEC) and Dominant Energy Condition (DEC) are fulfilled, while the Strong Energy Condition (SEC) is violated, validating the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 111 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Einstein, Cosmological Considerations in the Gen- eral Theory of Relativity,Sitzungsber Preuss Akad Wiss Berlin (Math.Phys.)1917, 142-152 (1917)

    A. Einstein, Cosmological Considerations in the Gen- eral Theory of Relativity,Sitzungsber Preuss Akad Wiss Berlin (Math.Phys.)1917, 142-152 (1917)

    work page 1917

  2. [2]

    Einstein, Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, K¨oniglich Preuβische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), Sitzungsberichte,1915, pp

    A. Einstein, Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, K¨oniglich Preuβische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), Sitzungsberichte,1915, pp. 844-847 (1915)

    work page 1915

  3. [3]

    Riess et al., Observational Evidence from Super- novae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmologi- cal Constant,Astron

    A.G. Riess et al., Observational Evidence from Super- novae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmologi- cal Constant,Astron. J.116, 1009 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Perlmutter et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,Astrophys

    S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements ofΩandΛfrom 42 High-Redshift Supernovae,Astrophys. J.517, 565 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Bennett et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,Astrophys

    C.L. Bennett et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,Astrophys. J. Suppl.148, 1-27 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Spergel et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determina- tion of Cosmological Parameters,Astrophys

    D.N. Spergel et al., First-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determina- tion of Cosmological Parameters,Astrophys. J. Suppl. 148, 175-194 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Caldwell et al., Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concor- dance regions and target models,Phys

    R.R. Caldwell et al., Cosmic microwave background and supernova constraints on quintessence: Concor- dance regions and target models,Phys. Rev. D69, 103517 (2004). 12

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Eisenstein et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies.Astrophys

    D.J. Eisenstein et al., Detection of the Baryon Acoustic Peak in the Large-Scale Correlation Function of SDSS Luminous Red Galaxies.Astrophys. J.633, 560–574 (2005)

    work page 2005

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    Percival, et al., Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 Galaxy Sample,Mon

    W.J. Percival, et al., Baryon Acoustic Oscillations in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 Galaxy Sample,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.401, 2148 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Komatsu et al., Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmological Inter- pretation,Astrophys

    E. Komatsu et al., Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmological Inter- pretation,Astrophys. J. Suppl.180, 330 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Riess et al., Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,Astrophys

    A.G. Riess et al., Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 from the Hubble Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,Astrophys. J.607, 665 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Koivisto, D.F

    T. Koivisto, D.F. Mota, Dark energy anisotropic stress and large scale structure formation,Phys. Rev. D73, 083502 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Peebles, B

    P.J.E. Peebles, B. Ratra, The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 559 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Riess et al., New Hubble space telescope discov- eries of type Ia supernovae atz>1: narrowing con- straints on the early behavior of dark energy,Astro- phys

    A.G. Riess et al., New Hubble space telescope discov- eries of type Ia supernovae atz>1: narrowing con- straints on the early behavior of dark energy,Astro- phys. J.659, 98 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Overduin, F.I

    J.M. Overduin, F.I. Cooperstock, Evolution of the scale factor with a variable cosmological term,Phys. Rev. D58, 043506 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Starobinsky, The case for a positive cos- mologicalΛ-term,Int. J. Modern Phys. D9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Copeland, M

    E.J. Copeland, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, Dynamics of dark energy,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D15, 1753 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Non-linear Lagrangians and cosmo- logical theory,Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.150, 1 (1970)

    1970

  11. [19]

    Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlin- ear gravitational Lagrangian,Gen

    R. Kerner, Cosmology without singularity and nonlin- ear gravitational Lagrangian,Gen. Relativ. Gravit.14 (1982) 453

    1982

  12. [20]

    Capozziello et

    S. Capozziello et. al., Cosmological viability off(R) gravity as an ideal fluid and its compatibility with a matter dominated phase,Phys. Lett. B639, 135 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    Amendola, D

    L. Amendola, D. Polarski and S. Tsujikawa, Aref(R) dark energy models cosmologically viable?,Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 131302 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Carroll, V

    S.M. Carroll, V . Duvvuri, M. Trodden and M. S. Turner, Is cosmic speed-up due to new gravitational physics?Phys. Rev. D70, 043528 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    De Felice, S

    A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa,f(R)theories,Liv. Rev. Rel.13, 1 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Starobinsky, Disappearing cosmological con- stant inf(R)gravity,JETP lett86, 157 (2007)

    A.A. Starobinsky, Disappearing cosmological con- stant inf(R)gravity,JETP lett86, 157 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    Sotiriou and V

    T.P. Sotiriou and V . Faraoni,f(R)theories of gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.82(2010) 451

    2010

  18. [26]

    Nojiri and S.D

    S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Unified cosmic history in modified gravity: fromf(R)theory to Lorentz non- invariant models,Phys. Rep.505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Harko, F.S.N

    T. Harko, F.S.N. Lobo, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, f(R,T)gravity,Phys. Rev. D84, 024020 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Houndjo, Reconstruction off(R,T)gravity de- scribing matter dominated and accelerated phases,Int

    M.J.S. Houndjo, Reconstruction off(R,T)gravity de- scribing matter dominated and accelerated phases,Int. J. Mod. Phys. D21, 1250003 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Moraes and P.K

    P.H.R.S. Moraes and P.K. Sahoo, The simplest non- minimal matter-geometry coupling in thef(R,T)cos- mology,Eur . Phys. J. C77, 480 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Bhardwaj, Non-minimal matter-geometry cou- pling in the Bianchi-V spacetime within the formal- ism off(R,T) =f 1(R)+f 2(R)f 3(T)cosmology,Mod

    V .K. Bhardwaj, Non-minimal matter-geometry cou- pling in the Bianchi-V spacetime within the formal- ism off(R,T) =f 1(R)+f 2(R)f 3(T)cosmology,Mod. Phys. Lett. A33, 1850234 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    D. Deb, S. V . Ketov, M. Khlopov and S. Ray, Study on charged strange stars inf(R,T)gravity,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.,10, 070 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    D. Deb, F. Rahaman, S. Ray and B.K. Guha, Strange stars inf(R,T)gravity,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 03, 044 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Maurya, F

    S.K. Maurya, F. Tello-Ortiz and S. Ray, Decoupling gravitational sources inf(R,T)gravity under class I spacetime,Phys. Dark Univ.,31, 100753 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sahoo, K.L

    R.R. Sahoo, K.L. Mahanta and S. Ray, Nonsingu- lar Phantom Cosmology in Five-Dimensionalf(R,T) Gravity,Universe,8, 573 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Koussour et al., Exploring cosmological evolution and constraints inf(T)teleparallel gravity,Phys

    M. Koussour et al., Exploring cosmological evolution and constraints inf(T)teleparallel gravity,Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101664 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Myrzakulov et al., Bulk viscous matter inf(T) gravity: A path to cosmic acceleration,Phys

    K. Myrzakulov et al., Bulk viscous matter inf(T) gravity: A path to cosmic acceleration,Phys. Lett. A 534, 130232 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Sharif and M

    M. Sharif and M. Zubair, Energy Conditions Con- straints and Stability of Power Law Solutions in f(R,T)Gravity,J. Phys. Soc. of Japan82, 014002 ( 2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Singh et al., A non-singular bouncing cosmology inf(R,T)gravity,Ann

    J.K. Singh et al., A non-singular bouncing cosmology inf(R,T)gravity,Ann. Phys.455, 169382 ( 2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Bertolami et al., Extra force inf(R)modified theo- ries of gravity,Phys

    O. Bertolami et al., Extra force inf(R)modified theo- ries of gravity,Phys. Rev. D,75, 104016 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling be- tween matter and geometry,Phys

    T. Harko, Modified gravity with arbitrary coupling be- tween matter and geometry,Phys. Lett. B,669, 376 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Faraoni, Viability criterion for modified gravity with an extra force,Phys

    V . Faraoni, Viability criterion for modified gravity with an extra force,Phys. Rev. D,76, 127501 ( 2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Faraoni, Lagrangian description of perfect fluids and modified gravity with an extra force,Phys

    V . Faraoni, Lagrangian description of perfect fluids and modified gravity with an extra force,Phys. Rev. D,80, 124040

  35. [43]

    Nesseris, Matter density perturbations in modified gravity models with arbitrary coupling between matter and geometry,Phys

    S. Nesseris, Matter density perturbations in modified gravity models with arbitrary coupling between matter and geometry,Phys. Rev. D,79, 044015 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    Harko, Galactic rotation curves in modified gravity with nonminimal coupling between matter and geom- etry,Phys

    T. Harko, Galactic rotation curves in modified gravity with nonminimal coupling between matter and geom- etry,Phys. Rev. D,81, 084050 (2010). 13

    2010

  37. [45]

    Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy- momentum tensor in modified gravity with nonmini- mal coupling between matter and geometry,Phys

    T. Harko, The matter Lagrangian and the energy- momentum tensor in modified gravity with nonmini- mal coupling between matter and geometry,Phys. Rev. D,81, 044021 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    Harko and F.S

    T. Harko and F.S. Lobo,f(R,L m)gravity,Eur . Phys. J. C,70, 373 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Koussour et al., Bouncing behavior inf(R,L m) gravity: Phantom crossing and energy conditions,Int

    M. Koussour et al., Bouncing behavior inf(R,L m) gravity: Phantom crossing and energy conditions,Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys.,21, 2450184 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Myrzakulov et al., Observational constraints on freezing quintessence in a non-linearf(R,L m)gravity, preprint arXiv:2412.10518 (2024)

    Y . Myrzakulov et al., Observational constraints on freezing quintessence in a non-linearf(R,L m)gravity, preprint arXiv:2412.10518 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Myrzakulov et al., Linear redshift parametrization of deceleration parameter inf(R,L m)gravity,Phys

    Y . Myrzakulov et al., Linear redshift parametrization of deceleration parameter inf(R,L m)gravity,Phys. Dark Univ.45, 101545 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Garg, G.P

    R. Garg, G.P. Singh, A.R. Lalke and S. Ray, Cosmo- logical model with linear equation of state parameter inf(R,L m)gravity,Phys. Lett. A,525, 129937 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Bhardwaj and S

    V .K. Bhardwaj and S. Ray, Cosmological model in the framework off(R,L m)gravity with quadratic equa- tion of state parameter,Phys. Dark Univ.,48, 101930 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Faraoni, Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Springer Nether- lands (2004)

    V . Faraoni, Scalar-Tensor Gravity, Springer Nether- lands (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Bertolami, J

    O. Bertolami, J. P´aramos and S.G. Turyshev, General theory of relativity: Will it survive the next decade?, in: Lasers, Clocks and Drag-Free Control: Exploration of Relativistic Gravity in Space, Springer, pp. 27–74 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Wang and K

    J. Wang and K. Liao, Energy conditions inf(R,L m) gravity,Class. Quantum Grav.,29, 215016 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    B. S. Goncalves, P. H. R. S. Moraes and B. Mishra, Cosmology from Non-Minimal Geometry- Matter Coupling,F ortsch. Phys. – Prog. Phys.,71, 2200153 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Jaybhaye et al., Cosmology inf(R,L m)gravity, Phys

    L.V . Jaybhaye et al., Cosmology inf(R,L m)gravity, Phys. Lett. B,831, 137148 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Bhardwaj and S

    V .K. Bhardwaj and S. Ray, Cosmological model with Logarithmic equation of state parameter inf(R,L m) gravity,Phys. Dark Univ.,49, 102038 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Myrzakulov et al., Late-time cosmology inf(Q,L m) gravity: Analytical solutions and observational fits, Phys

    Y . Myrzakulov et al., Late-time cosmology inf(Q,L m) gravity: Analytical solutions and observational fits, Phys. Dark Univ.46, 101614 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Myrzakulov et al., Observational analysis of late- time acceleration inf(Q,L m)gravity,J

    K. Myrzakulov et al., Observational analysis of late- time acceleration inf(Q,L m)gravity,J. High Energy Astrophys.44, 164-171 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Myrzakulov et al., Constrainingf(Q,L m)grav- ity with bulk viscosity,Phys

    Y . Myrzakulov et al., Constrainingf(Q,L m)grav- ity with bulk viscosity,Phys. Dark Univ.48, 101829 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Samaddar and S.S

    A. Samaddar and S.S. Singh, Constraining gravity with redshift-dependent pressure: Insights from obser- vational probes, arXiv:2508.04738 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hazarika, S

    A. Hazarika, S. Arora, P.K. Sahoo and T. Harko, gravity, and its cosmological implications,Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102092 (2025)

    2025

  55. [63]

    Jimenez, L

    J.B. Jimenez, L. Heisenberg, and T. Koivisto, Co- incident general relativity,Phys. Rev. D98, 044048 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Y . Xu, G. Li, T. Harko, and S.-D. Liang,f(Q,T)grav- ity,Eur . Phys. J. C79, 1 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Hazarika, et al.,f(Q,L m)gravity, and its cosmolog- ical implications, preprint arXiv:2407.00989 (2024)

    A. Hazarika, et al.,f(Q,L m)gravity, and its cosmolog- ical implications, preprint arXiv:2407.00989 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Myrzakulov, et al., Modified cosmology inf(Q,Lm) gravity,Phys

    Y . Myrzakulov, et al., Modified cosmology inf(Q,Lm) gravity,Phys. Lett. B866, 139506 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Harko, T.S

    T. Harko, T.S. Koivisto, F.S. Lobo, G.J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Coupling matter in modifiedQgrav- ity,Phys. Rev. D98, 084043 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers atz∼2, Mon

    M. Moresco, Raising the bar: new constraints on the Hubble parameter with cosmic chronometers atz∼2, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, L16–L20 (2015)

    2015

  61. [69]

    Sharov, V .O

    G.S. Sharov, V .O. Vasilie, How predictions of cosmo- logical models depend on Hubble parameter data sets, Math. Model. Geom.6, 1 (2018)

    2018

  62. [70]

    H. Yu, B. Ratra, F-Yin Wang, Hubble Parameter and Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurement Con- straints on the Hubble Constant, the Deviation from the Spatially FlatΛCDM Model, the Deceleration- Acceleration Transition Redshift, and Spatial Curva- ture,Astrophys. J.856, 3 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Conley et al., Supernova constraints and systematic uncertainties from the first three years of the supernova legacy survey,Astrophys

    A. Conley et al., Supernova constraints and systematic uncertainties from the first three years of the supernova legacy survey,Astrophys. J. Suppl.192, 1 (2011)

    2011

  64. [72]

    Scolnic et al., The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan- STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample,Astrophys

    D.M. Scolnic et al., The Complete Light-curve Sam- ple of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan- STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample,Astrophys. J.859, 101 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    Brout, G

    D. Brout, G. Taylor, D. Scolnic et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: SuperCal-Fragilistic Cross Calibration, Re- trained SALT2 Light Curve Model, and Calibration Systematic Uncertainty,Astrophys. J.938, 111 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Adame et al., DESI 2024 VI: cosmological con- straints from the measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations,J

    A.G. Adame et al., DESI 2024 VI: cosmological con- straints from the measurements of baryon acoustic os- cillations,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02, 021 (2025)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Lodha et al., Extended Dark Energy analysis us- ing DESI DR2 BAO measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14743 (2025)

    K. Lodha et al., Extended Dark Energy analysis us- ing DESI DR2 BAO measurements, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.14743 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Abdul Karim et al., DESI DR2 results

    M. Abdul Karim et al., DESI DR2 results. II. Measure- ments of baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmologi- cal constraints,Phys. Rev. D112, 083515 (2025)

    2025

  69. [77]

    Rubin et al., Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys

    D. Rubin et al., Union through UNITY: Cosmology with 2000 SNe Using a Unified Bayesian Framework, Astrophys. J.986, 231 (2025)

    2000

  70. [78]

    Tutusaus, B

    I. Tutusaus, B. Lamine, A. Blanchard, Model- independent cosmic acceleration and redshift- 14 dependent intrinsic luminosity in type-Ia supernovae, Astron. Astrophys.625, A15 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Benevento, W

    G. Benevento, W. Hu, and M. Raveri, Can late dark en- ergy transitions raise the Hubble constant?,Phys. Rev. D101, 103517 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Chen, Q.G

    L. Chen, Q.G. Huang, K. Wang, Distance priors from Planck final release,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.028, (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results-V

    N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results-V . CMB power spectra and likelihoods,Astron. Astrophys.A5(2020)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Renzini, A

    A. Renzini, A. Bragaglia, F.R. Ferraro, The white dwarf distance to the globular cluster NGC 6752 (and its age) with the Hubble Space Telescope,Astrophys. J.465, L23 (1996)

    1996

  75. [83]

    Masi, et al., The BOOMERanG experiment and the curvature of the Universe,Prog

    S. Masi, et al., The BOOMERanG experiment and the curvature of the Universe,Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.48, 243 (2002)

    2002

  76. [84]

    Hinshaw, et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmologi- cal parameter results,Astrophys

    G. Hinshaw, et al., Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmologi- cal parameter results,Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser .208, 25 (2013)

    2013

  77. [85]

    Bond, et al., HD 140283: A star in the solar neighborhood that formed shortly after the Big Bang, Astrophys

    H.E. Bond, et al., HD 140283: A star in the solar neighborhood that formed shortly after the Big Bang, Astrophys. J. Lett.765, L12 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    Bhardwaj, S

    V .K. Bhardwaj, S. Prakash, Observational constraints on anisotropic cosmological model in Lyra’s manifold, Chin. J. Phys.87665–676 (2024)

    2024

  79. [87]

    Bhardwaj, A.K

    V .K. Bhardwaj, A.K. Yadav, Observation constraints on scalar field cosmological model in anisotropic uni- verse,Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.21, 2450144 (2024)

    2024

  80. [88]

    Bentabol, J.M

    B.M. Bentabol, J.M. Bentabol, J. Cepa, Evolution of the cosmological horizons in a universe with countably infinitely many state equations,J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.015(2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    L. Xu, H. Liu, Constraints to deceleration parameters by recent cosmic observations,Mod. Phys. Lett. A23, 1939 (2008)

    1939

  82. [90]

    Crevecoeur, Evolution of the distance scale fac- tor and the Hubble parameter in the light of Planck’s results, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06834 (2016)

    G.U. Crevecoeur, Evolution of the distance scale fac- tor and the Hubble parameter in the light of Planck’s results, arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.06834 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Santos et al., Constraining the cosmic deceleration-acceleration transition with type Ia super- nova, BAO/CMB andH(z)data,J

    M.V .D. Santos et al., Constraining the cosmic deceleration-acceleration transition with type Ia super- nova, BAO/CMB andH(z)data,J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys.066(2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Capozziello et al., Model-independent reconstruc- tion of cosmological accelerated-decelerated phase, Mon

    S. Capozziello et al., Model-independent reconstruc- tion of cosmological accelerated-decelerated phase, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.509, 5399 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    U. Alam, V . Sahni, T. Deep Saini, A.A. Starobinsky, Exploring the expanding universe and dark energy us- ing the Statefinder diagnostic,Mon. Not. R. Astron Soc.344, 1057 (2003)

    2003

  86. [94]

    Zhang, Statefinder diagnostic for holographic dark energy model,Int

    X. Zhang, Statefinder diagnostic for holographic dark energy model,Int. J. Mod. Phys D14, 1597 (2005)

    2005

  87. [95]

    Setare, J

    M.R. Setare, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, Statefinder diagnosis in a non-flat universe and the holographic model of dark energy,J. Cosmo. Astropart. Phys.007(2007)

    2007

  88. [96]

    Sahni, T.D

    V . Sahni, T.D. Saini, A.A. Starobinsky, U. Alam, Statefinder—A new geometrical diagnostic of dark en- ergy,J. Exp. Theor . Phys. Lett.77, 201 (2003)

    2003

  89. [97]

    Jamil, D

    M. Jamil, D. Momeni, R. Myrzakulov, Observational constraints on non-minimally coupled Galilean model, Eur . Phys. J. C73, 2347 (2013)

    2013

  90. [98]

    Visser, Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state,Class

    M. Visser, Jerk, snap and the cosmological equation of state,Class. Quantum Grav.21, 2603 (2004)

    2004

  91. [99]

    Blandford, et al., Cosmokinetics,ASP Conf

    R.D. Blandford, et al., Cosmokinetics,ASP Conf. Ser . 339, 27 (2004)

    2004

  92. [100]

    Shahalam, S

    M. Shahalam, S. Sami, A. Agarwal, Om diagnostic ap- plied to scalar field models and slowing down of cos- mic acceleration,Mon. Not. Roy Astron Soc.448, 2948 (2015)

    2015

  93. [101]

    Bhardwaj, et al., Constraining hybrid potential scalar field cosmological model in Lyra’s geometry with recent observational data,Int

    V .K. Bhardwaj, et al., Constraining hybrid potential scalar field cosmological model in Lyra’s geometry with recent observational data,Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.22, 2450283 (2024)

    2024

  94. [102]

    Sahni, A

    V . Sahni, A. Shafieloo, A.A. Starobinsky, Two new diagnostics of dark energy,Phys. Rev. D78, 103502 (2008)

    2008

  95. [103]

    Bhardwaj, P

    V .K. Bhardwaj, P. Garg, S. Prakash, Cosmological dy- namics of accelerating model inf(Q)gravity with lat- est observational data,Astrophys. Space Sci.369, 1-13 (2024)

    2024

  96. [104]

    Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity, Addison Wesley, Boston (2004)

    S.M. Carroll, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity, Addison Wesley, Boston (2004)

    2004

  97. [105]

    Santos, J.S

    J. Santos, J.S. Alcaniz, Energy conditions and Segre classification of phantom fields,Phys. Lett. B619, 11 (2005)

    2005

  98. [106]

    Santos, et al., Energy conditions inf(R)gravity, Phys

    J. Santos, et al., Energy conditions inf(R)gravity, Phys. Rev. D76, 083513 (2007)

    2007

  99. [107]

    Myrzakulov, et al., Energy conditions inf(Q,L m) gravity,Eur

    Y . Myrzakulov, et al., Energy conditions inf(Q,L m) gravity,Eur . Phys. J. C85, 376 (2025)

    2025

  100. [108]

    Perez Bergliaffa, Constrainingf(R)theories with the energy conditions,Phys

    S.E. Perez Bergliaffa, Constrainingf(R)theories with the energy conditions,Phys. Lett. B642, 311-314 (2006)

    2006

  101. [109]

    Capozziello, S

    S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri,d S.D. Odintsov, The role of energy conditions inf(R)cosmology,Phys. Lett. B 781, 99-106 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Ratra, P.J.E

    B. Ratra, P.J.E. Peebles, Cosmological consequences of a rolling homogeneous scalar field,Phys. Rev. D37, 3406 (1988)

    1988

  103. [111]

    Bhardwaj, M.K

    V .K. Bhardwaj, M.K. Rana, A.K Yadav, Bulk viscous Bianchi-V cosmological model within the formalism off(R,T) =f 1(R) +f 2(R)f 3(T)gravity,Astrophys. Space Sci.364, 1 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.